DOCSLIB.ORG

The Singapore Academy of Law: an Essential Dedication To

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Singapore Academy of Law: an Essential Dedication To THE SINGAPORE ACADEMY OF LAW: AN ESSENTIAL DEDICATION TO HONOUR AND SERVICE Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture 2018 Supreme Court of Singapore, 11 October 2018 The Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Distinguished guests, Fellow members of the Academy, and Friends I. Introduction 1. Let me first express my sincere gratitude to the Annual Lecture Organising Committee and its Chair, Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy, for inviting me to deliver the 25th Singapore Academy of Law Annual Lecture. The inaugural lecture was delivered by the Rt Hon Lord Taylor of Gosforth, then Lord Chief Justice of England, and this rostrum has since been graced by the Chief Justices of several major Commonwealth as well as some non-Commonwealth jurisdictions, with one notable exception: no Singaporean has ever delivered the Annual Lecture.1 I am therefore very greatly honoured and humbled to have been accorded this privilege. Given that the Academy celebrates its 30th birthday this year, I can think of no better topic I am most grateful to my law clerk, Sarah Siaw, and my colleague, Assistant Registrar Scott Tan, both of whom assisted me greatly with the research for and preparation of this Lecture. for this lecture than the Academy itself, whose life and development over the last 30 years have been closely intertwined with that of the legal profession. 2. Soren Kierkegaard famously said, “Life must be lived forwards, but can only be understood backwards.” As we look back on the sometimes colourful and tumultuous life of the Academy, we will, I hope, understand more fully how far we have come, what unites us as a profession, and how we might prepare to meet the challenges that lie ahead of us. 3. My lecture is in three parts. First, I will trace the Academy’s journey from troubled infancy to mature adulthood in the hope that it will remind us of how improbable, and therefore how precious, an achievement this is. Next, I will turn to the motto of the Academy, honor est in honorante, and reflect on what the values of honour and service mean and how they have united us in the noble venture to administer justice. Finally, I will look ahead to the challenges of the future and explain why I think the Academy could be integral to their resolution. II. Foundation: the first 25 years of the Academy 4. I begin with the past, which, it has been said, is a foreign country.2 Legal practice in Singapore at the close of the 1980s was still clothed in the trappings of the English legal system. Our judges were addressed as “my Lord” and “your Lordship”; lawyers wore stiff wing collars and bibs; and judges and prosecutors also wore horse-hair wigs.3 Whatever their sartorial merits, I do not think anyone would 2 disagree that wing collars and wigs were simply out of place in the context of our “shirt-sleeves” culture and our tropical weather. But the anachronistic nature of our professional attire was symptomatic of a wider disconnect between the legal profession and the rest of Singapore, then still quite newly independent and already defined by a keen sense of pragmatism. 5. Whereas the rest of society was busy going about the business of building a new nation, the machinery of justice was sclerotic. It was said that judges were known to “grant adjournments on fairly flimsy grounds”, while lawyers would collude to send complex cases “to sleep for years on end”.4 An action begun by writ might have to wait five or more years before being tried, and at least another two years before being heard on appeal.5 Professional development stagnated due to over- reliance on Queen’s Counsel;6 and there were criticisms that law graduates were not sufficiently practice-oriented; that practitioners were not interested in continuing legal education; and that the Singapore Legal Service was out of touch with the realities of legal practice.7 6. But perhaps most worrying of all, there was a sense of disunity between the Bench and the Bar, the seeds of which had been sown some years earlier in January 1986. The Law Society had just elected as its president Mr Francis Seow, a former Solicitor-General with a reputation for brazenness and eloquence.8 At the Opening of the 1986 Legal Year, Mr Seow delivered a barnstorming speech. He claimed that the Bar was in a “restless mood” and blamed this on the discourtesy 3 that lawyers were shown in court, complaining that they “too often … encountered the insolence of office, [and] the vicissitudes of temperament and tolerance”. Mr Seow protested that the Bar, together with the Courts and the Legal Service, were part of “an equal trinity” and “deserve[d] as much respect as the other arms of justice” failing which, he warned, there would come “a greater restlessness and a deepening gloom”.9 An incensed Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin set aside his prepared address and responded ex tempore, retorting: “Though we may be a trinity, we are not an equal trinity.” He continued: “Whether or not an individual member of the Bar who appears before the Bench deserves the respect which he claims, depends on him and on him alone. He has to earn it.”10 7. Over the next few months, the relationship between the Law Society and the Government grew increasingly strained, much of the heat having been generated by a critical press release the Society had issued on the Newspaper and Printing Presses Bill. In August 1986, the Government introduced amendments to the Legal Profession Act which, among other things, tightened the eligibility requirements for holding office in the Law Society and limited the Society to commenting only on bills submitted to it.11 These reportedly “caused considerable unhappiness within the profession”,12 and as one consequence of the amendments, Mr Seow, who had twice been suspended from practice, was automatically disqualified from the presidency of the Society.13 8. Some time after the amendments to the Legal Profession Act, the 4 Singapore Academy of Law Bill was presented to Parliament. The Academy was to be the first institution in this part of the world to unite the four arms of the legal fraternity – bench, bar, legal service, and academia – under a single aegis.14 The Second Minister for Law, who delivered the Second Reading speech, spoke of a place modelled on the English Inns of Court where members of the fraternity might “meet in an informal atmosphere”, just as a barrister might “lunch and dine with his fellow members in the Inn Hall, use the Inn library, and join in the social life of the Inn”.15 The hope was that these interactions would give rise to a “collegiate spirit in the legal fraternity”,16 lead to higher professional standards, and imbue the profession with a sense of honour and a love of the law.17 9. This early articulation of the Academy’s raison d’être might have come across as simplistic, unduly optimistic and even naively hopeful. But hindsight and the wisdom of experience have taught us otherwise. In reflecting on this, I was especially struck by something that Chief Justice Wee said in his ex tempore response at the Opening of the 1986 Legal Year, where he warned that: Unless there is unity and a willingness to co-operate among all who have anything to do with the administration of justice, there will be no success for anyone. 10. I extract from that statement, the following propositions: 5 (a) all members of the Academy are engaged in a mission to administer justice, which is a high mission that transcends our individual hopes, ambitions and desires; (b) the achievement of this mission depends greatly on the key stakeholders from the bench, bar, Legal Service, and academia coming together in unity of purpose and the recognition that the pursuit of justice is a higher calling that demands fidelity and focus; and (c) the differences that must inevitably arise from time to time are far less important than the need to prioritise that higher purpose which should bind us all. 11. I think that Chief Justice Wee, who by that time had already spent 23 years as Chief Justice laying the judicial foundations for a system of justice that would serve a new nation, saw a real risk that those involved in its execution were stratified and disunited. The establishment of the Academy was driven by the need for an institution that would unite the whole profession in that common purpose which I have spoken about, and imbue it with a genuine appreciation of its central values. Although the emphasis at the time was on a “place” where the members of the profession could meet and interact, that was only part of this wider mission. 12. That was the context in which the Academy came into being on 11 August 1988. However, there remained disaffected and distrustful segments of the 6 profession that saw it as part of a plan to emasculate the Law Society and subject lawyers to greater censorship and closer supervision.18 Some lawyers refused to pay their subscription fees as a form of protest, hoping to be kicked out of the Academy altogether,19 while others boycotted its premises, refusing even to step in when invited. As late as 1995, one senior lawyer, speaking to the Straits Times, described the establishment of the Academy as “an attempt to divide the profession”.20 When the Academy’s endowment committee went canvassing for donations, they came back “empty-handed … and with egg on their faces”.21 As a result, the Academy was forced to increase its fees to stay afloat, but this only stoked the enmity of the Bar.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Rule of Law and Urban Development
    The Rule of Law and Urban Development The transformation of Singapore from a struggling, poor country into one of the most affluent nations in the world—within a single generation—has often been touted as an “economic miracle”. The vision and pragmatism shown by its leaders has been key, as has its STUDIES URBAN SYSTEMS notable political stability. What has been less celebrated, however, while being no less critical to Singapore’s urban development, is the country’s application of the rule of law. The rule of law has been fundamental to Singapore’s success. The Rule of Law and Urban Development gives an overview of the role played by the rule of law in Singapore’s urban development over the past 54 years since independence. It covers the key principles that characterise Singapore’s application of the rule of law, and reveals deep insights from several of the country’s eminent urban pioneers, leaders and experts. It also looks at what ongoing and future The Rule of Law and Urban Development The Rule of Law developments may mean for the rule of law in Singapore. The Rule of Law “ Singapore is a nation which is based wholly on the Rule of Law. It is clear and practical laws and the effective observance and enforcement and Urban Development of these laws which provide the foundation for our economic and social development. It is the certainty which an environment based on the Rule of Law generates which gives our people, as well as many MNCs and other foreign investors, the confidence to invest in our physical, industrial as well as social infrastructure.
    [Show full text]
  • [2020] SGCA 16 Civil Appeal No 99 of 2019 Between Wham Kwok Han
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 16 Civil Appeal No 99 of 2019 Between Wham Kwok Han Jolovan … Appellant And The Attorney-General … Respondent Civil Appeal No 108 of 2019 Between Tan Liang Joo John … Appellant And The Attorney-General … Respondent Civil Appeal No 109 of 2019 Between The Attorney-General … Appellant And Wham Kwok Han Jolovan … Respondent Civil Appeal No 110 of 2019 Between The Attorney-General … Appellant And Tan Liang Joo John … Respondent In the matter of Originating Summons No 510 of 2018 Between The Attorney-General And Wham Kwok Han Jolovan In the matter of Originating Summons No 537 of 2018 Between The Attorney-General And Tan Liang Joo John ii JUDGMENT [Contempt of Court] — [Scandalising the court] [Contempt of Court] — [Sentencing] iii This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General and other appeals [2020] SGCA 16 Court of Appeal — Civil Appeals Nos 99, 108, 109 and 110 of 2019 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, Tay Yong Kwang JA and Steven Chong JA 22 January 2020 16 March 2020 Judgment reserved. Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 These appeals arise out of HC/OS 510/2018 (“OS 510”) and HC/OS 537/2018 (“OS 537”), which were initiated by the Attorney-General (“the AG”) to punish Mr Wham Kwok Han Jolovan (“Wham”) and Mr Tan Liang Joo John (“Tan”) respectively for contempt by scandalising the court (“scandalising contempt”) under s 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (Act 19 of 2016) (“the AJPA”).
    [Show full text]
  • The War on Terrorism and the Internal Security Act of Singapore
    Damien Cheong ____________________________________________________________ Selling Security: The War on Terrorism and the Internal Security Act of Singapore DAMIEN CHEONG Abstract The Internal Security Act (ISA) of Singapore has been transformed from a se- curity law into an effective political instrument of the Singapore government. Although the government's use of the ISA for political purposes elicited negative reactions from the public, it was not prepared to abolish, or make amendments to the Act. In the wake of September 11 and the international campaign against terrorism, the opportunity to (re)legitimize the government's use of the ISA emerged. This paper argues that despite the ISA's seeming importance in the fight against terrorism, the absence of explicit definitions of national security threats, either in the Act itself, or in accompanying legislation, renders the ISA susceptible to political misuse. Keywords: Internal Security Act, War on Terrorism. People's Action Party, Jemaah Islamiyah. Introduction In 2001/2002, the Singapore government arrested and detained several Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) operatives under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for engaging in terrorist activities. It was alleged that the detained operatives were planning to attack local and foreign targets in Singa- pore. The arrests outraged human rights groups, as the operation was reminiscent of the government's crackdown on several alleged Marxist conspirators in1987. Human rights advocates were concerned that the current detainees would be dissuaded from seeking legal counsel and subjected to ill treatment during their period of incarceration (Tang 1989: 4-7; Frank et al. 1991: 5-99). Despite these protests, many Singaporeans expressed their strong support for the government's actions.
    [Show full text]
  • Bench & Bar Games 2007
    South China Sea MALAYSIA SINGAPORE MALAYSIA | SINGAPORE Bench & Bar Games 2007 28 - 30 April 2007 Java Sea OFFICES SINGAPORE 80 RAFFLES PLACE #33-00 UOB PLAZA 1 SINGAPORE 048624 TEL: +65 6225 2626 FAX: +65 6225 1838 SHANGHAI UNIT 23-09 OCEAN TOWERS NO. 550 YAN AN EAST ROAD SHANGHAI 200001, CHINA TEL: +86 (21) 6322 9191 FAX: +86 (21) 6322 4550 EMAIL [email protected] CONTACT PERSON HELEN YEO, MANAGING PARTNER YEAR ESTABLISHED 1861 NUMBER OF LAWYERS 95 KEY PRACTICE AREAS CORPORATE FINANCE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & TECHNOLOGY LITIGATION & ARBITRATION REAL ESTATE LANGUAGES SPOKEN ENGLISH, MANDARIN, MALAY, TAMIL www.rodyk.com 1 Contents Message from The Honourable The Chief 2 10 Council Members of Bar Council Malaysia Justice, Singapore 2007/2008 Message from The Honourable Chief 3 15 Sports Committee - Singapore and Malaysia Justice, Malaysia Message from the President of The Law 4 16 Teams Society of Singapore Message from the President of Bar Council 5 Malaysia 22 Results of Past Games 1969 to 2006 Message from Chairman, Sports 6 Sports Suit No. 1 of 1969 Committee, The Law Society of Singapore 23 Message from Chairman, Sports 7 Acknowledgements Committee, Bar Council Malaysia 24 9 The Council of The Law Society of Singapore 2007 Malaysia | Singapore Bench & Bar Games 2007 022 Message from The Honourable The Chief Justice, Singapore The time of the year has arrived once again for the Malaysia/Singapore Bench & Bar Games. Last year we enjoyed the warm hospitality of our Malaysian hosts on the magical island of Langkawi and this year, we will do all that we can to reciprocate.
    [Show full text]
  • 4 Comparative Law and Constitutional Interpretation in Singapore: Insights from Constitutional Theory 114 ARUN K THIRUVENGADAM
    Evolution of a Revolution Between 1965 and 2005, changes to Singapore’s Constitution were so tremendous as to amount to a revolution. These developments are comprehensively discussed and critically examined for the first time in this edited volume. With its momentous secession from the Federation of Malaysia in 1965, Singapore had the perfect opportunity to craft a popularly-endorsed constitution. Instead, it retained the 1958 State Constitution and augmented it with provisions from the Malaysian Federal Constitution. The decision in favour of stability and gradual change belied the revolutionary changes to Singapore’s Constitution over the next 40 years, transforming its erstwhile Westminster-style constitution into something quite unique. The Government’s overriding concern with ensuring stability, public order, Asian values and communitarian politics, are not without their setbacks or critics. This collection strives to enrich our understanding of the historical antecedents of the current Constitution and offers a timely retrospective assessment of how history, politics and economics have shaped the Constitution. It is the first collaborative effort by a group of Singapore constitutional law scholars and will be of interest to students and academics from a range of disciplines, including comparative constitutional law, political science, government and Asian studies. Dr Li-ann Thio is Professor of Law at the National University of Singapore where she teaches public international law, constitutional law and human rights law. She is a Nominated Member of Parliament (11th Session). Dr Kevin YL Tan is Director of Equilibrium Consulting Pte Ltd and Adjunct Professor at the Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore where he teaches public law and media law.
    [Show full text]
  • The Decline of Oral Advocacy Opportunities: Concerns and Implications
    Published on 6 September 2018 THE DECLINE OF ORAL ADVOCACY OPPORTUNITIES: CONCERNS AND IMPLICATIONS [2018] SAL Prac 1 Singapore has produced a steady stream of illustrious and highly accomplished advocates over the decades. Without a doubt, these advocates have lifted and contributed to the prominence and reputation of the profession’s ability to deliver dispute resolution services of the highest quality. However, the conditions in which these advocates acquired, practised and honed their advocacy craft are very different from those present today. One trend stands out, in particular: the decline of oral advocacy opportunities across the profession as a whole. This is no trifling matter. The profession has a moral duty, if not a commercial imperative, to apply itself to addressing this phenomenon. Nicholas POON* LLB (Singapore Management University); Director, Breakpoint LLC; Advocate and Solicitor, Supreme Court of Singapore. I. Introduction 1 Effective oral advocacy is the bedrock of dispute resolution.1 It is also indisputable that effective oral advocacy is the product of training and experience. An effective advocate is forged in the charged atmosphere of courtrooms and arbitration chambers. An effective oral advocate does not become one by dint of age. 2 There is a common perception that sustained opportunities for oral advocacy in Singapore, especially for junior lawyers, are on the decline. This commentary suggests * This commentary reflects the author’s personal opinion. The author would like to thank the editors of the SAL Practitioner, as well as Thio Shen Yi SC and Paul Tan for reading through earlier drafts and offering their thoughtful insights. 1 Throughout this piece, any reference to “litigation” is a reference to contentious dispute resolution practice, including but not limited to court and arbitration proceedings, unless otherwise stated.
    [Show full text]
  • Giving Report 2010/2011 Report Giving
    Medicine Engineering Public Policy Music Business Law Arts and Social Sciences National University Singapore of GIVING REPORT 2010/2011 GIVING REPORT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE National University of Singapore Shaw Foundation Alumni House 2010/2011 #03-01, 11 Kent Ridge Drive Singapore 119244 t: +65 6516 8000 / 1-800-DEVELOP f: +65 6775 9161 e: [email protected] www.giving.nus.edu.sg PRESIDENT’S STATEMENT Dear alumni and friends, Your support this past year has provided countless opportunities for the National Science University of Singapore (NUS), particularly From music to for the students who are at the heart of our University. For example, approximately medicine, your 1,700 students received bursaries. Around 1,400 of these were partially supported by gift today makes the Annual Giving campaign and about 300 are Named Bursaries. Thank you for Computing a difference to a making this possible. student’s tomorrow Our future is very exciting. NUS University Town will open its doors in the coming months and the Yale-NUS College will follow a few years later. These new President’s Statement........................................... 01 initiatives will allow NUS to continue pursuing its goal of offering students, Thank You For Your Contribution.................... 02 from the entire NUS campus, a broader Education { 02 } education that will challenge them and Research { 06 } position them well for the future. Service { 10 } Design and Environment Through these and other innovations, Annual Giving – NUS is also breaking new ground in Making A Difference Together......................... 14 higher education, both in Singapore and the region. The NUS experience will Strength In Numbers............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Valedictory Reference in Honour of Justice Chao Hick Tin 27 September 2017 Address by the Honourable the Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon
    VALEDICTORY REFERENCE IN HONOUR OF JUSTICE CHAO HICK TIN 27 SEPTEMBER 2017 ADDRESS BY THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SUNDARESH MENON -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon Deputy Prime Minister Teo, Minister Shanmugam, Prof Jayakumar, Mr Attorney, Mr Vijayendran, Mr Hoong, Ladies and Gentlemen, 1. Welcome to this Valedictory Reference for Justice Chao Hick Tin. The Reference is a formal sitting of the full bench of the Supreme Court to mark an event of special significance. In Singapore, it is customarily done to welcome a new Chief Justice. For many years we have not observed the tradition of having a Reference to salute a colleague leaving the Bench. Indeed, the last such Reference I can recall was the one for Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin, which happened on this very day, the 27th day of September, exactly 27 years ago. In that sense, this is an unusual event and hence I thought I would begin the proceedings by saying something about why we thought it would be appropriate to convene a Reference on this occasion. The answer begins with the unique character of the man we have gathered to honour. 1 2. Much can and will be said about this in the course of the next hour or so, but I would like to narrate a story that took place a little over a year ago. It was on the occasion of the annual dinner between members of the Judiciary and the Forum of Senior Counsel. Mr Chelva Rajah SC was seated next to me and we were discussing the recently established Judicial College and its aspiration to provide, among other things, induction and continuing training for Judges.
    [Show full text]
  • Transparency and Authoritarian Rule in Southeast Asia
    TRANSPARENCY AND AUTHORITARIAN RULE IN SOUTHEAST ASIA The 1997–98 Asian economic crisis raised serious questions for the remaining authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia, not least the hitherto outstanding economic success stories of Singapore and Malaysia. Could leaders presiding over economies so heavily dependent on international capital investment ignore the new mantra among multilateral financial institutions about the virtues of ‘transparency’? Was it really a universal functional requirement for economic recovery and advancement? Wasn’t the free flow of ideas and information an anathema to authoritarian rule? In Transparency and Authoritarian Rule in Southeast Asia Garry Rodan rejects the notion that the economic crisis was further evidence that ulti- mately capitalism can only develop within liberal social and political insti- tutions, and that new technology necessarily undermines authoritarian control. Instead, he argues that in Singapore and Malaysia external pres- sures for transparency reform were, and are, in many respects, being met without serious compromise to authoritarian rule or the sanctioning of media freedom. This book analyses the different content, sources and significance of varying pressures for transparency reform, ranging from corporate dis- closures to media liberalisation. It will be of equal interest to media analysts and readers keen to understand the implications of good governance debates and reforms for democratisation. For Asianists this book offers sharp insights into the process of change – political, social and economic – since the Asian crisis. Garry Rodan is Director of the Asia Research Centre, Murdoch University, Australia. ROUTLEDGECURZON/CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES Edited by Kevin Hewison and Vivienne Wee 1 LABOUR, POLITICS AND THE STATE IN INDUSTRIALIZING THAILAND Andrew Brown 2 ASIAN REGIONAL GOVERNANCE: CRISIS AND CHANGE Edited by Kanishka Jayasuriya 3 REORGANISING POWER IN INDONESIA The politics of oligarchy in an age of markets Richard Robison and Vedi R.
    [Show full text]
  • Smubrochure.Pdf
    SMU LAW SCHOOL The Singapore Government, in a major review of the domestic supply of lawyers, confirmed a shortage of lawyers in Singapore. 2007 hence marked a major milestone in the development of legal education in Singapore – the setting up of the nation’s second law school. SMU is honoured to be entrusted with this important responsibility. As Singapore’s first private university and the only university here with a city campus purpose-built to its pedagogy of small class size and interactive learning, SMU will be extending its unique approach to its School of Law. SMU’s undergraduate law programme aims to mould students into excellent lawyers who will contribute significantly to society. The objective is to produce law graduates who have contextualised legal expertise and the ability to think across disciplines and geographical borders. In terms of pedagogy, SMU’s seminar-style learning will be put to good effect to nurture students who are confident, articulate and analytically agile. CONTENTS 03 Dean’s Message 04 Investing In The Fundamentals // Rigorous and Challenging Curriculum // Holistic Pedagogy & Course Assessment // Optional Second Major // Wide Range of Double Degree Options // Beneficial Internship & Community Service // Internship Partners 09 Commitment To Excellence // Scholarships & Awards // National & International Competitions // International Exchange 12 Career Prospects // Raising The Bar 13 Visionary Campus // City Campus // Facilities 15 Strengthening Our Relevance // Centre for Dispute Resolution // International Islamic Law and Finance Centre // Pro Bono Centre // Asian Peace-building and Rule of Law Programme 18 Heeding The Best // Advisory Board Members 19 Top Notch Faculty // Deanery // Faculty 24 The Fun Stuff // Beyond The Classroom Dean’s Message The School of Law was started in 2007 after a major review of legal education in Singapore concluded that it was timely to have a second law school in Singapore.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Surveillance & Compliance Panel Annual
    MARKET SURVEILLANCE & COMPLIANCE PANEL ANNUAL REPORT 2017 IN MEMORIAM JOSEPH GRIMBERG SC It is with great sadness that we mark of the Middle Temple. Joe retained the approached to represent the Presidency. He the passing of Mr Joseph Grimberg on graciousness and bearing of the best accepted the brief with reluctance, claiming 17 August 2017. English barristers all his life. He spoke with that he had lost his nerve. His performance a refined and cultured English accent – a in court belied his modesty; those who had Mr Joe Grimberg was the first Chairman of natural one, not an artificial snobby stage the privilege of watching him in action can the Market Surveillance and Compliance accent put on to impress others. He was testify to the elegant eloquence with which Panel (MSCP). He took office on also a keen sportsman who played rugby he presented the case for the Presidency. 1 January 2003, right at the beginning when and cricket for the Singapore Cricket the Singapore wholesale electricity market Club, a reflection perhaps of his anglophile Joe was undoubtedly one of the very best was inaugurated. He served for five years character. advocates to grace our courts. His leading until 31 December 2007, at a time when the role in the legal profession was recognised fledgling market was just taking off. The role In 1956, Joe returned to Singapore where when he was appointed Senior Counsel in of the Chairman was crucial in those days he joined the firm in which he spent the bulk 1997, one of the first batch of local ‘silks’.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore Constitution 1963
    ICL - Singapore - Constitution Page 1 of 57 Singapore - Constitution { Adopted on: 16 Sep 1963 } { ICL Document Status: 24 March 1995 } Part I Preliminary Article 1 Citation This Constitution may be cited as the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore. Article 2 Interpretation (1) In this Constitution, unless it is otherwise provided or the context otherwise requires, - "Cabinet" means the Cabinet constituted under this Constitution; - "Civil List" means the provision made under Article 22j for the maintenance of the President; - "citizen of Singapore" means any person who, under the provisions of this Constitution, has the status of a citizen of Singapore; - "commencement", used with reference to this Constitution, means the day on which this Constitution comes into operation; - "Consolidated Fund" means the Consolidated Fund established by this Constitution; - "Council of Presidential Advisers" means the Council of Presidential Advisers constituted under Part - "existing law" means any law having effect as part of the law of Singapore immediately before the commencement of this Constitution; - "Government" means the Government of Singapore; - "Judge of the Supreme Court" includes the Chief Justice, a Judge of Appeal, and a Judge of the High Court; - "law" includes written law and any legislation of the United Kingdom or other enactment or instrument whatsoever which is in operation in Singapore and the common law in so far as it is in operation in Singapore and any custom or usage having the force of law in Singapore; - "Legal Service
    [Show full text]